Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the job state machine (running | done | rejected | deleted | expired), the polling loop, and the underlying Batch API route. It still doesn't say anything about timing/backoff for polling or what 'details' are actually returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact clauses: what it does, the status values, the polling workflow, and the API route. Front-loaded with the purpose and no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and listing the status enum plus the transcript-fetch handoff covers the essential decision points. It stops short of describing the payload shape (e.g., which detail fields are populated per status), which would fully close the gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter job_id is already documented in the schema as 'returned by speechmatics_transcribe_url'. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate for a single well-documented parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single job's details and status') and enumerates the possible status values. The word 'single' plus the status enum cleanly separates it from speechmatics_list_jobs, which returns many jobs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete workflow guidance: 'Poll this until status is "done", then fetch the transcript,' which tells the agent both the calling pattern and the handoff to speechmatics_get_transcript. It does not explicitly name the sibling to use for the alternative case (e.g., list_jobs for enumerating), so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.